Tennplugg Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 31 minutes ago, Sim said: You clearly don't understand the concept of social engineering and how to get free items through virtual payment chargebacks and I suggest you do your research. Here's a brief summary Player 1 buys x amount of virtual currency through credit card Player 1 uses said virtual currency to acquire better gear in X videogame Player 1 is more powerful now. Player 1 calls his bank and tells them his account got hijacked and that he doesn't play videogames like that Bank blindly trusts and charges back. Game company looses money and Player 1 keeps the ill-gotten gains. This is an example of single player chargebacks. If we apply to this suggestion: Player 1 buys a shit ton of WP, like 2k. Player 1 distributes the WP among his friends so they can enjoy. Player 2, 3 and 4 say "Oh so generous!" and then use those WP to buy perks. Player 1 has now acquired the trust of Player 2, 3 and 4 and they're now prone to try and recompensate Player 1's ooc money. Player 1 then charges back the money. It's clearly P1's fault, but what about P2, P3 and P4's perks? They clearly had nothing to do with the scheme and shouldn't be punished, but those WPs are never paid for, therefore they shouldn't have them, so it creates a loop of morals, should Nervous take them away or should they keep them? It's simply too complicated of a system that people like to abuse. I hope this clears this up and brings and insight into why the system will probably never be implemented. Banks don't operate in a "Hey, this guy who uses your service is indeed using mine, chargeback is wrong" kind of way, and even if it did, it would be a tedious process to ring up every single bank for each individual player who starts charging back. And believe me, if word spreads about the system being abused, it will be abused by everyone. Well explained. Link to comment
HerpToTheDerp Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 You can already gift world points to other players as long as they aren't already in your account. This seems unnecessary. Link to comment
Literallyademon Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 (edited) Pretend it ain't happen Edited November 30, 2020 by Literallyademon Link to comment
Woona Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 (edited) No, this would just lead to abuse. I understand the argument "everything can be abused", this will just feed into the pay-to-succeed mindset people have. Rules will always be secondary to people who want to "succeed". No need to increase the amount of work staff have to already. Edited November 30, 2020 by Woona Link to comment
Senior Management Everett Posted December 19, 2020 Senior Management Share Posted December 19, 2020 This has been suggested previously many times - unfortunately it is prone for abuse and we are not planning to implement it at this point in time. Thanks for the suggestion though! Link to comment
Recommended Posts